STATE OF ODISHA Vs. CHOUDHURY NATABAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Das learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of appellants. He submits, the appeal is against impugned judgment, whereby challenge under sec. 30 made by petition under sec. 33 in Arbitration Act, 1940 stood rejected/dismissed. Five claims were allowed. In allowing them the arbitrator miss-conducted himself and the proceedings.

(2.) He submits, first awarded claim no.15 was for escalation. It was allowed in respect of the contract providing for rates as given in the 1964 schedule rates. It is irrelevant that some part of the work continued after coming into force of the 1972 schedule of rates since the arbitrator could not have gone beyond four corners of the contract.

(3.) Mr. Das prays for adjournment to conclude his argument on next date. Mr. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of respondents.